Upgrade.Vet

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001555

Original file (MD1001555.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

ex-, USMC

Current Discharge and Applicant’s Request

Application Received: 20100611

Characterization of Service Received:

Narrative Reason for Discharge:
Authority for Discharge: MARCORSEPMAN

Applicant’s Request:      Characterization change to:
         Narrative Reason change to: PERSONAL HARDSHIP

Summary of Service
Prior Service:
Inactive:         USMCR (DEP)       19990619 - 20000612     Active:

Period of Service Under Review:
Date of Current Enlistment: 20000613     Age at Enlistment:
Period of E nlistment : Years Months
Date of Discharge: 20030214      H ighest Rank:
Length of Service : Y ea r ( s ) M on th ( s ) 02 D a y ( s )
Education Level:        AFQT: 80
MOS: 6323
Proficiency/Conduct M arks (# of occasions): /         Fitness R eports:

Awards and Decorations ( per DD 214):      Rifle MM(2)

Periods of UA / CONF : 20020311-20020630 (112 days); 20020904-20020913 (10 days) / 20020915-20021204 (81 days)

NJP:     SCM:              CC:      Retention Warning Counseling :

SPCM:
- 20021205 :       Art icle (Unauthorized absence - 2 specifications totaling 122 days (112 +10), which the latter ended in apprehension by civilian authorities )
         Art icle (False official statement)
         Sentence :

Administrative Corrections to the Applicant’s DD 214

The NDRB did note administrative error(s) on the original DD Form 214:

         “ GENERAL (UNDER HONORABLE CONDITIONS) ”

The NDRB will recommend to the Commandant of the Marine Corps that the DD 214 be corrected as appropriate.

Types of Documents Submitted/reviewed

Related to Military Service:
                  DD 214:          Service / Medical Record:          Other Records:
Related to Post-Service Period:
         Employment:               Finances:                 Education /Training :
         Health/Medical Records:          Substance Abuse:                  Criminal Records:
         Family/Personal Status:                   Community Service:                References:
         Additional Statements :
                  From Applicant:          From Representat ion :               From Congress member :
         Other Documentation :

Pertinent Regulation/Law

A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT of the Marine Corps Separation and Retirement Manual, (MCO P1900.16E), effective 1 September 2001 until Present.

B. Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5420.174D of 22 December 2004, Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) Procedures and Standards, Part II, Para 211, Regularity of Government Affairs , Part V, Para 502, Propriety and Para 503, Equity .

C. The Manual for Courts-Martial authorizes the award of a punitive discharge if adjudged as part of the sentence upon conviction by a special or general court-martial for violation s of the UCMJ, Article s 86 and 107 .

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
NAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB)
DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENT

Applicant’s Issues

1. The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because he wasn’t separated via SPCM , and he was a victim of circumstance .
2 . The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration.

Decision

Date: 20110 804 Location: Washington D.C. R epresentation :

By a vote of the Characterization shall .
By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .

Discussion
The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted. In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include evidence submitted by the Applicant. The Board did complete a thorough review of the circumstances that led to discharge and the discharge process to ensure discharge met the pertinent standards of equity and propriety. The Applicant’s record of service included Special Court-Martial (SPCM) for o f the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ): Article (Unauthorized absence - 2 specifications totaling 122 days (112 +10), which the latter ended in apprehension by civilian authorities) and Article (False official statement). Based on the offenses committed by the Applicant, command administratively processed for separation. When notified of administrative separation processing using the procedure, the Applicant exercised rights to consult with a qualified counsel, but waived his right to submit a written statement for considerat ion by the separating authority and to request an administrative board . The command recommended that the Applicant receive an Under Other than Honorable Condit ions characterization, but the S eparating A uthority disagreed and separated him with a General (Under Honorable Conditions).

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant contends his discharge is inequitable , because he wasn’t separated via SPCM , and he was a victim of circumstance. Despite a Marine’s prior record of service, certain serious offenses warrant separation from the N aval S ervice in order to maintain proper order and discipline. Violation of Article 86 (UA for longer than 30 days) and Article 107 (False official statement) are both considered serious offenses per the Manual for Courts-Martial. Although the Applicant was not discharged at a SPCM, it does not preclude the command from administratively processing him based on his misconduct. With regards to being a victim of circumstance, t he A pplicant conducted himself in a manner that is inconsistent with the Core Values of the Marine Corps and provided no documentary evidence to the NDRB that he tried to use the many services available to servicemembers to help with family issues . The NDRB determined that the Applicant is very fortunate to have the discharge characterization he received , as others with similar misconduct typically receive a Bad Conduct or Under Other Than Honorable Conditions discharge. Relief denied.

: (Decisional) ( ) . The Applicant believes his post-service conduct is worthy of consideration. Although the Applicant provided documentation showing he is gainfully employed and a positive character reference , he failed to provide any other current documentary evidence on his behalf for post-service consideration. To warrant an upgrade , the Applicant’s post - service efforts need to be more encompassing. The Applicant could have produced additional evidence as stated in the Post-Service Conduct paragraph in the Addendum with the full understanding completion of these items alone does not guarantee an upgrade. The NDRB determined the characterization of service received was extremely lenient considering the length of service and the UCMJ violations involved. Relief denied.

Summary: After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s summary of service, record entries, and discharge process, the Board found Therefore, the awarded characterization of service shall and the narrative reason for separation shall remain . The Applicant remains eligible for a personal appearance hearing for a period of fifteen years from the date of discharge. The Applicant is directed to the Addendum, specifically the paragraphs titled Additional Reviews and Post-Service Conduct .

ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant

Complaint Procedures : If you believe the decision in your case is unclear, not responsive to the issues you raised, or does not otherwise comport with the decisional document requirements of DoD Instruction 1332.28, you may submit a complaint in accordance with Enclosure (5) of that Instruction to the Joint Service Review Activity, OUSD (P&R) PI-LP, The Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-4000. You should read Enclosure (5) of the Instruction before submitting such a complaint. The complaint procedure does not permit a challenge of the merits of the decision; it is designed solely to ensure that the decisional documents meet applicable requirements for clarity and responsiveness. You may view DoD Instruction 1332.28 and other Decisional Documents by going online at “ http://Boards.law.af.mil . ”

Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. The Applicant can provide documentation to support any claims of post-service accomplishments or any additional evidence related to this discharge. Representation at a personal appearance hearing is recommended but not required. There are veterans organizations such as the American Legion and the Disable d American Veterans that are willing to provide guidance to former service members in their efforts to obtain a discharge upgrade. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted their opportunities before the NDRB, the Applicant may petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), 2 Navy Annex, Washington, DC 20370-5100 for further review.

Service Benefits: The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) determines eligibility for post-service benefits, not the NDRB. There is no requirement or law that grants recharacterization solely on the issue of obtaining veterans benefits and this issue does not serve to provide a foundation upon which the Board can grant relief.

Employment/Educational Opportunities : The NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing employment or educational opportunities. Regulations limit the NDRB’s review to a determination of the propriety and equity of the discharge.

Reenlistment/RE-code: Since the NDRB has no jurisdiction over reenlistment, reentry, or reinstatement into the Navy, Marine Corps, or any other of the Armed Forces, the NDRB is not authorized to change a reenlistment code. Only the BCNR can make changes to reenlistment codes. Additionally, the NDRB has no authority to upgrade a discharge for the sole purpose of enhancing reenlistment opportunities. An unfavorable “RE” code is, in itself, not a bar to reenlistment. A request for a waiver can be submitted during the processing of a formal application for reenlistment through a recruiter.

Medical Conditions and Misconduct : DoD disability regulations do not preclude a disciplinary separation. Appropriate regulations stipulate that separations for misconduct take precedence over potential separations for other reasons. Whenever a member is being processed through the Physical Evaluation Board, and is processed subsequently for an administrative involuntary separation or is referred to a court martial for misconduct, the disability evaluation is suspended pending the outcome of the non-disability proceedings. If the action includes either a punitive or administrative discharge for misconduct or for any basis wherein an Other Than Honorable discharge is authorized, the medical board report is filed in the member’s terminated health record. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other medical related reasons. Only the BCNR can grant this type of narrative reason change.

Automatic Upgrades - There is no law or regulation that provides for an unfavorable discharge to be upgraded based solely on the passage of time or good conduct subsequent to leaving naval service.

Post-Service Conduct : The NDRB is authorized to consider post-service factors in the recharacterization of a discharge. Outstanding post-service conduct, to the extent such matters provide a basis for a more thorough understanding of the Applicant’s performance and conduct during the period of service under review, is considered during Board reviews. Documentation to support a post-service conduct upgrade includes, but is not limited to: a verifiable continuous employment record; marriage and children’s birth certificates (if applicable); character witness statements; documentation of community or church service; certification of non-involvement with civil authorities; evidence of financial stability or letters of good standing from banks, credit card companies, or other financial institutions; attendance at or completion of higher education (official transcripts); and documentation of a drug-free lifestyle. The Applicant is advised that completion of these items alone does not guarantee the upgrade of an unfavorable discharge, as each discharge is reviewed by the Board on a case-by-case basis to determine if post-service accomplishments help demonstrate in-service misconduct was an aberration and not indicative of the member’s overall character.

Issues Concerning Bad-Conduct Discharges (BCD ): Because relevant and material facts stated in a court-martial specification are presumed by the NDRB to be established facts, issues relating to the Applicant’s innocence of charges for which he was found guilty cannot form a basis for relief. With respect to a discharge adjudged by a special court-martial, the action of the NDRB is restricted to upgrades based on clemency. Clemency is an act of leniency that reduces the severity of the punishment imposed. The NDRB does not have the jurisdictional authority to review a discharge or dismissal resulting from a general court-martial.

Board Membership: The names and votes of the members of the NDRB Board are recorded on the original of this document and may be obtained from the service records by writing to:

Secretary of the Navy Council of Review Boards
Attn: Naval Discharge Review Board
720 Kennon Street SE Rm 309
Washington Navy Yard DC 20374-5023

Similar Decisions

USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0901950

Original file (MD0901950.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. Additionally, the NDRB does not have the authority to change a narrative reason for separation to one indicating a medical disability or other...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902213

Original file (ND0902213.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. ” Additional Reviews : After a document review has been conducted, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the NDRB within 15 years of the Applicant’s date of discharge. If a former member has been discharged for more than 15 years, has already been granted a personal appearance hearing or has otherwise exhausted...
USMC | DRB | 2009_Marine | MD0900615

Original file (MD0900615.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the characterization of service received, Bad Conduct Discharge, was an appropriate characterization considering the length of service, the UCMJ violations involved, and lack of post-service documentation.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Service Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found clemency was not warranted and the sentence awarded the Applicant at his...
NAVY | DRB | 2008_Navy | ND0801831

Original file (ND0801831.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Board determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate and an upgrade would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record Entries, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found Pertinent Regulation/Law A. ” Additional Reviews : Subsequent to a document review, former members are eligible for a personal appearance hearing, provided the application is received at the...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800581

Original file (MD0800581.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall MISCONDUCT.Discussion : either which the Board cannot form the basis of relief for the Applicant, or the Board does not have the authority to grant the relief for which the Applicant petitioned. After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Medical and Service Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found that Pertinent Regulation/Law A. Paragraph 6210, MISCONDUCT...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0801906

Original file (MD0801906.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The NDRB determined the awarded discharge characterization was appropriate for the numerous violations the Applicant committed and an upgrade based on back pain as a mitigating factor would be inappropriate.After a thorough review of the available evidence, to include the Applicant’s Summary of Service, Record, Discharge Process and evidence submitted by the Applicant, the Board found ADDENDUM: Information for the Applicant Complaint Procedures : If you believe that the decision in your case...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901759

Original file (ND0901759.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Representation: By a vote of the Characterization shall .By a vote of the Narrative Reason shall .Discussion The NDRB, under its responsibility to examine the propriety and equity of an Applicant’s discharge, is authorized to change the character of service and the reason for discharge if such change is warranted.In reviewing discharges, the Board presumes regularity in the conduct of governmental affairs unless there is substantial credible evidence to rebut the presumption, to include...
USMC | DRB | 2008_Marine | MD0800587

Original file (MD0800587.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

The Commanding General determined the Applicant would be discharged with a “General (Under Honorable Conditions)” characterization due to Alcohol Rehabilitation Failure. The Board determined that an impropriety had taken place during the processing of the Applicant, which led him to believe the least favorable discharge characterization he would receive was “Honorable.” Based on the propriety issue, the Board felt an upgrade to “Honorable” would be appropriate by a vote of 3-2.:() .The NDRB...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0901944

Original file (ND0901944.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYNAVAL DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD (NDRB) DISCHARGE REVIEW DECISIONAL DOCUMENTApplicant’s Issues 1. It is of no consequence that the assault charge was subsequently dismissed by the civilian court since the command was not required to delay or postpone the administrative discharge processing pending the outcome of his civilian case when there was sufficient evidence to substantiate the discharge based on other misconduct committed by the Applicant.The Board determined that...
NAVY | DRB | 2009_Navy | ND0902010

Original file (ND0902010.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

Applicant’s Request:Characterization change to:Narrative Reason change to: Summary of Service Prior Service: Inactive:USNR (DEP)19900310 - 19901109ELSActive: 19901114 - 20010208 HONInactive: USNR (DEP) 19901113 - 19901113 Period of Service Under Review: Date of Current Enlistment: 20010209Age at Enlistment:Period of Enlistment: YearsExtensionDate of Discharge:20040330Highest Rank/Rate:AO1Length of Service: Year(s)Month(s)28 Day(s)Education Level:AFQT:...

Search Decisions

Decision Text

USMC | DRB | 2010_Marine | MD1001555

Similar Decisions